“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” —John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765

The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report included evidence in the form of a “hockey stick” graph, showing that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. Less prominent, but just as wrong, was erasure of the Little Ice Age (LIA). Proponents of the IPCC hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming were mainly connected with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Leaked CRU emails, beginning with 1000 in late 2009, exposed the corruption of climate science of the IPCC. CRU people controlled critical portions of IPCC Working Group I. They set up procedures to control the peer-review process, control data, and attack any who challenged, especially if it was with contradictory evidence.

This was necessary because they deliberately thwarted the scientific method by presenting an hypothesis and blocking normal and essential skepticism. They determined to prove rather than disprove the hypothesis. As Richard Lindzen correctly observed decades ago, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. Evidence emerged, despite their efforts, so they created pseudoscientific vehicles to counterattack.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.

The web site, RealClimate, was another major vehicle created by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who invented the name.

A group of scientists established themselves as the palace guard for the gang at the CRU. Mann and Schmidt led and quickly earned reputations for aggressive, assertive, replies to challenges. They saw them as threats rather than contributions. It was the attitude that if you are not with me you must be against me. On December 10, 2004 Schmidt set the tone when he wrote,

Colleagues, No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven “commentary”on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days:

It sounds innocent but was used in a very different manner. Schmidt’ phraseology is revealing.

The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds and give more context to climate related stories or events.

The phrase “working climate scientists” was used frequently as a put down, such as by Andrew Weaver in his public attacks against me. Unless you are one, you have no credibility or right to an opinion. It reflected concern about the growing group of qualified, but older climate experts, speaking out about what the IPCC was doing. It was a deliberate attempt to marginalize.

What is a “bombshell” paper? Invariably, it was one that contradicted their claims. Normally, these were ones that showed current climate is well within natural variability and not linked to human activity. The fundamental objective of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is to show human behavior and particularly industrial development is unnatural and creating unnatural changes. This illusion allows them to point to any natural event and imply it is unnatural. Skeptical evidence consistently showed it was not, but most people didn’t know, so, sadly, it was effective.

Examples of Spin

Temperature range in the Antarctic ice core record (Figure 1) is approximately 12°C and the three previous Interglacials were warmer than today. Both facts were effectively ignored by diverting attention to the apparent relationship with CO2. Within five years it was shown to be opposite to the assumption in the hypothesis because temperature changed before CO2.

Figure 1

The Holocene Optimum, formerly called the Hypsithermal and/or the Climatic Optimum, was a warm period during which most of ice from the last Ice Age phase melted. Several have written effectively about AGW claims for this period, including Steve McIntyre and. Anthony Watts. Michael Mann’s comment was an attempt to deflect the evidence.

This [Holocene Climatic Optimum] is a somewhat outdated term used to refer to a sub-interval of the Holocene period from 5000-7000 years ago during which it was once thought that the earth was warmer than today. We now know that conditions at this time were probably warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the extratropics of the Northern Hemisphere.

Mann is incorrect because most of the last 10,000 years was warmer than today as the Greenland ice core shows.

Figure 2; Composite PowerPoint slide. Source: The Author

Two indicators of the temperature range are the Greenland ice cores and the global sea level increase. Figure 2 is a slide linking R. B. Alley’s temperature plot with a photograph of a fossilized 4940-year-old White Pine located 100 km north of the current tree line. Graph temperature range is approximately 4°C.

Sea level rise is compiled in Figure 3 and shows most occurred between 15,000 and 7,000 years ago. It is not a sub-interval as Mann claims.

Figure 3

Determination to rewrite history and “prove” the claim that current climate is unnaturally warmer than ever, really became focused after the 1990 IPCC Report.

It contained the illustration 7 (c) that showed the MWP and the LIA (Figure 4) and contradicted the IPCC hypothesis.

Figure 4

My discussions with Lamb about the graph involved the beginning and ending points of both the MWP and the LIA. It was crucial because my period of study potentially covered the end of the MWP and the onset of the LIA. Those questions didn’t concern the IPCC because for them they didn’t exist. He said the graph was of temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere and the dotted line represented the average temperature of the 20th century. Lamb defined them by the dotted line on the graph, as the labeling indicates.

It was also in a region, central Canada, were transition was important because it covers the annual shift of the Circumpolar Vortex (CV). The average latitude changes in mid continent seasonally from approximately 30° to 65°, but these latitudes change as global climate changes. The latitude shift in the CV was captured in my analysis of wind directions, among other variables. This was included in my doctoral thesis (1982) and peer-reviewed papers.

Figure 5 shows changing percentages of southerly winds at York Factory for two decades: 1721 -31 was within the LIA and 1841 – 1851 apparently not.

Figure 5

Source: Ball,.T.”A Dramatic Change in the General Circulation on the West Coast of Hudson Bay in 1760 A.D.: Synoptic Evidence Based on Historic Records”, Syllogeus Climatic Change in Canada 5: Critical Periods in the Quaternary Climatic History of Northern North America, Editor, C.R. Harington,NationalMuseumsofCanada,1985,Vol.55, pp. 219-229.

Fewer than 10 percent were southerly winds in the decade 1721 -1731 but they were more than 10 percent between 1841-1851.

The IPCC claimed the MWP and LIA did not exist. This allowed them to avoid the real issue, which is not whether the warmer and cooler periods occurred, but when they began and ended. That question requires an explanation of the mechanism of change. Consider the debate going on today about the changes in the Circumpolar Vortex. Saying they don’t exist eliminated the need to consider evidence of solar causes of changing CV latitude and the shift of patterns between Zonal and Meridional Flow. This, by default, narrows the focus on human production of CO2 as the cause of change.

A general synopsis of Lamb’s views on the MWP and LIA from our discussions is that they both occurred and were global. Dates of onset and termination varied, often significantly, depending on dominant factors in different regions. He identified land – water juxtapositions and topography as two major factors with these being of greater import in Polar Regions.

The IPCC set up a system to prove the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. They created a false imagery, supposedly verified by computer models, orchestrated to produce predetermined results. They made valiant efforts to control the entire climate research area, from funding through peer review and publications. Despite these efforts, evidence kept emerging that disproved the hypothesis. Instead of accepting and accommodating, they set up agencies to counter and hopefully negate them. This paralleled their practice of changing names from global warming to climate change, when temperatures leveled after 1998, while CO2 continued to rise. They effectively blocked advances in climate research for 30 years. They had sufficient success to fool the world into unnecessary energy and economic policies that have cost billions so far and it is not over yet, as the Obama administration attacks on coal illustrate.

Maybe one day there’ll be a presidential inquiry into who said what and when, but there again presidents don’t like asking embarrassing questions about previous incumbents, as they don’t want to set a dangerous precedent.

Bloke down the pub says:
June 30, 2014 at 12:29 am
———————————————–
What it requires is for some politicians to be elected that have both brains and a backbone. However the power brokers ensure that the only “choice” that is given to the sheeple is between the insipid and the incompetent. That way the power stays with the power brokers …

“the need to consider evidence of solar causes of changing CV latitude and the shift of patterns between Zonal and Meridional Flow. This, by default, narrows the focus on human production of CO2 as the cause of change.”
Yes.http://www.newclimatemodel.com/new-climate-model/

IPCC is a parasitic organisation whose existence relies on AGW , with Mann and his gang are merely parasite facilitators who have done very well out of their ‘work’ , without its ‘host ‘ like any parasite its it would be dead through starvation.
With that in mind, is anyone surprised to find its acts in the way it does?
The saddest part is the very people that should have acted has gate keepers to such behaviour have either played the three wise monkeys or deep their own snouts in bucket of funding slops no matter how much ‘filth’ they had to clog their eyes , ears and mouths with . And for that we may all pay the price as the people start to view all science through the dishonest, hypocritical , poor scientific approaches used by climate ‘science’ .

Tim Ball:
Your article is titled and explains that the “IPCC Method Of Proving The ‘Human Caused Warming’ (AGW) Hypothesis Forced Deliberate Creation of Misinformation”.Well, yes, of course it did! From its inception the IPCC has had the purpose of producing political propaganda in the form of scientific information selected and developed to promote a political agenda. This is formally stated in the IPCC “Principles” which are frequently reconsidered and approved by representatives of the governments which comprise the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of each IPCC Report is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the most recent IPCC report (AR5) is edited to match its SPMs.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed. However, it has been adopted as official IPCC procedure for all subsequent IPCC Reports. Appendix A of the present Report (i.e. AR5) states this when it says.

4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel
Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC. The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”.
This is clearly stated in the “Principles” which govern the work of the IPCC. These are stated athttp://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Near its beginning that document says

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.

The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”
and
(b) “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”.
Hence, its “Role” demands that the IPCC accepts as a given that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” which pertain to “the application of particular policies”. Any ‘science’ which fails to support that political purpose is ‘amended’ in furtherance of the IPCC’s Role. The IPCC Reports are pure pseudoscience intended to provide information to justify political actions; i.e.Lysenkoism.
Richard

And Goddard has brought to our attention some of that misinformation in terms of manipulating the temperature record. What gets me is that this is not a bigger story in the mainstream media. We are seeing that the Chicken Little Brigade has completely fudged the record, so a big question is whether we have been warming at all.
Btw, I’ve been trying to highlight a point that seems inconsistent with the idea of 20th century runaway warming as promulgated by Michael Mann, et al. It’s that 6 out of the 7 continents set their records for the coldest day after their record for their hottest day. Same for ALL 4 hemispheres (North, South, East, West). In runaway warming, the record for the hottest day should have been set very recently, as in “the hottest decade on record.” And coldest should have been set near the onset of the supposed out of control 20th century warming. I don’t think that that warming happened, and that is consistent with Goddard’s analysis. And I’m looking at the data for individual countries, and I’m getting a mixed bag and a spotty record. But I think you are going to have greater exceptions to the trend as well as possible warmist tampering with things at the individual country level. Look at the continents, and with again, 6 out of 7 setting their cold records more recently than the hot record, I find that belies the supposed warming trend in the temperature record. The continent data in an easy viewing chart is here: http://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

The evidence is there, but the problem for us is that revealing this sort of information into the public domain sounds like a conspiracy theory. People find it hard to believer that the Royal society, New Scientist, Governments and universities all fell for this hoax, and the public do not want the arduous task of finding out for themselves. Also the Obama’s relish the opportunity to saving the world by central control. It is all quiet hard for outsiders to grasp.
The other side of the coin is that when people do eventually turn against it they will start to lump scientists with bankers and politicians; you cannot believe a word of what they say because they are too busy loading their message to access grants and fortune.
The Climate junk science has really damaged the reputation of science.

“They made valiant efforts to control the entire climate research area, from funding through peer review and publications.”
One take on why they do this, is a deep-seated belief that the social and economic system based on fossil fuel use is subject to a Malthusian type catastrophe, that can only be prevented by blocking the system wholly and effectively to begin with. In other words, the system has to be subverted, because it is the system, including science, that is the problem in the first place. In their attempt to save the world from inevitable catastrophe, the normal processes of science have to be suspended.
But you are quite right in pointing this out to people in the above, as most people might not actually agree that science has to be suspended for the sake of a ‘higher cause’.

Together with the anti-science hypocracy of the IPCC, their ”demands” have lead to refusal of aid for developing countries to increase their energy availability and doubled food costs for these same countries pushing more people into starvation. More and more westerners are also descending into fuel poverty as basic energy costs escalate. Evil bastards.
Thanks Dr Ball.

Well, it clear as day that we haven’t been warming for, what, 18 years? All the while CO2 has continued it’s unchecked rise. This in itself and the total failure of their much touted climate models suggest that the very foundation of their theory, on CO2, is false. That’s the evidence, at least recently. Actually, going back hundreds of thousands of years, looking at the ice core data, we see the same thing. No evidence that CO2 does squat, and this is despite Al Gore & the ipcc’s claims to the contrary. See the 3 minute video that changed me from a warmist to a skeptic, that exposes Al Gore’s willful deceptions on CO2, and that has Tim Ball playing a bit role: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&info=GGWarmingSwindle_CO2Laga bit role Kidding! Tim Ball’s role in the linked video is to sound the climactic point, that their theory is all a bunch of baloney (paraphrasing). Btw, promote the above key video on facebook or something, because it’s that important: it will change people’s opinion in 3 NY minutes!

The most basic criticism of Climate Alchemy is the IPCC climate modelling, based on the Trenberth et al ‘Energy Budget’, falls at the first hurdle, the creation of extra energy within the system, a ‘Perpetual motion machine of the 2nd Kind’, failing the Clausius criterion of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
In short, no professional scientist or engineer can accept it therefore its supporters are unprofessional., no matter how many there are and the number of peer reviewed publications they have produced.
Pretty stark, maybe, but science has to be retaken by professionals from those who gained income and status from being unprofessional.

Check your language settings Anthony. Many page elements are in turkish.REPLY: why does everyone always assume problems on their own browser is my fault? The only Turkish here is inside your own computer. I’ve checked on three browsers on two machines, there’s no issue with WUWT. I suggest a cache cleaning, restart, or or reboot – Anthony

Eric Simpson says of the Goddard revelations –
“What gets me is that this is not a bigger story in the mainstream media.”
whilst the toilet paper of record, NYT, WaPo & other CAGW gatekeepers may have ignored the news, others didn’t:
27 June: UK Daily Mail: David Martosko: Obama mocks GOP global warming skeptics and says they ‘pretend’ they ‘can’t read’ – but ignores new claims that the US has been COOLING since the 1930s
The president spoke to a partisan audience of environmental activists on Wednesday night in Washington
He claimed GOP lawmakers believe global warming is real but won’t admit it because they’re afraid of ‘a bunch fringe elements’ in their own party
‘They ducked the question and said “Hey, I’m not a scientist”,’ Obama joked
Obama ignored new evidence that American scientists have been altering climate data for years
The US Historical Climatology Network has been adjusting its records by replacing temperatures with data fabricated by computer models
As he tries to rally public support around new White House rules aimed at coal-burning power plants, however, the president hasn’t yet addressed a brewing scandal in the scientific community.
Global warming specialists inside the scientific community are buzzing about revelations first made Friday, which show how the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s official graph of historical U.S. surface temperatures records has been quietly altered for years.
Government scientists, it is alleged, have been tweaking some of the world’s most oft-cited climate records by replacing actual temperature readings in the United States, Iceland and Australia with hypothetical numbers derived from computer models…
The damning graphs published on the ‘Real Science’ blog by Steven Goddard, the nom de plume of a self-described ‘lifelong environmentalist’ with graduate-level scientific credentials…
They are also tripped up by the changing list of temperature measurement stations, Goddard writes, as more estimates are used instead of real readings: ‘As rural stations are lost, the infilling process contaminates them with warmer urban stations.’
This, he says, is how the U.S. government has claimed the earth has been steadily warming by 3 degrees Celsius per century, while the actual measurements indicate that the planet has been cooling since the 1930s.
Obama, however, steered clear of science on Wednesday and accused Republicans of ignoring global-warming evidence for political advantage…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671146/Obama-mocks-GOP-global-warming-skeptics-says-pretend-read-ignores-new-claims-US-COOLING-1930s.html
27 June: Detroit News: Frank Beckmann: Climate alarmists won’t save economy
Faced with an economic report that was about to show a 2.9 percent drop in gross domestic product (GDP, a key economic indicator), President Barack Obama and his band of gloomy climate scaremongers introduced us to a new one — climate change is now a threat to the U.S. economy…
This should come as good news…
Saving a planet that is irreparably damaged — as the alarmists have told us has happened because we haven’t addressed the dangers of CO2 emissions in time — is such a big job, even for the wizards of smart in the church of environmental religion, but saving the economy? Now that’s a possibility…
This latest initiative, called “The Risky Business Project,” uses all the usual ruses employed by the imaginative alarmist crowd, more frequent heavy storms, rising sea levels, melting arctic ice caps, and, of course, catastrophic temperature increases.
You can talk to them all day about the reductions in heavy storms over more than a decade, the lack of sea level rise, the actual increase of Arctic ice cover, and the 17-year hiatus in global temperature rise, but they won’t want to hear it.
You can point out, as Steven Goddard did at his website called Real Science, that alarmists have fraudulently changed the temperature data from years past to falsely show a more recent warming trend — the real numbers show the 1930s as the warmest years in the U.S. — and Obama, et al, cover their ears…
In addition to former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — yep, the guy who forced banks to accept TARP loans even if they didn’t want them — the Risky Business group includes none other than Tom Steyer, the billionaire California environmental activist who’s buying up Democratic party candidates wherever he can…
But as is the case with the so-called scientists who warn of cataclysmic climate change, one need only follow the money to determine the true motives of the alarmists….
In Steyer’s case, he and his former hedge fund company are invested in a firm that is competing with the Keystone pipeline to transport Canadian tar sands oil.
Yes, Steyer has been involved in all sorts of fossil fuel investments to make his fortune and he now seeks to grow it through destruction of the traditional fuel industry and government subsidy for his new favorite green projects and investments, all with the help of Peters and other politicians he supports…http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140627/OPINION01/306270020

27 June: Carroll County Times: Michael Zimmer: Ground climate change debate in facts
Some news reports from around the world, and some columns from various sources have caught my eye recently on the subject of climate change, or global warming if one prefers that term…
A column that drew my attention was from Christopher Booker writing for the London Telegraph June 21…
Booker expressed amazement at the part “played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data.”
He cited as “another damning example” the information uncovered by Steven Goddard’s science blog.
Goddard purports to reveal “adjustments” to the temperature records of U.S. surface temperatures by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Goddard believes NOAA has substituted actual temperature data with “data fabricated by computer models.”
Goddard compared currently published temperature graphs with those based on temperatures measured at that time. The results seem to indicate a downgrade of earlier temperatures and exaggeration of more recent decades.
Booker concludes that global warming notions should not be looked on as science, “but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberration of group psychology.”…http://www.carrollcountytimes.com/columnists/opinion/mike_zimmer/michael-zimmer-ground-climate-change-debate-in-facts/article_65188aa7-0bf1-5db6-9661-91619281c2d3.html
can’t resist posting this snarky piece of nonsense in the UK Mirror. love the use of “we” and “us”:
24 June: UK Mirror: Conrad Quilty-Harper: Did NOAA “fiddle” global warming data? Nah
Debunking the latest manufactured controversy about global warming data.
To Steven Goddard, Christopher Booker, James Delingpole, Matt Drudge and the rest of the “climate change”-isn’t-real brigade, this is a deadly sin and proves that NASA and NOAA are committing Orwellian thought crimes with the data.
To the rest of ***us, it’s scientists doing science, and the mere fact that ***we have to explain it makes ***depressed…http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/06/24/did-noaa-fiddle-global-warming-data-nah/

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=4872.txt
The Pressure… I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. …
The Source of the Pressurehttp://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0700.txt… K Hutter added that politicians accused scientists of a high signal to noise ratio; scientists must make sure that they come up with stronger signals. The time-frame for science and politics is very different; politicians need instant information, but scientific results take a long time …
The Resulthttp://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=3759.txt…Hi Keith, Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and
actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me withstrong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s
based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you
have to review (hint, hint!).
Oroko Swamp is in New Zealand. The email, from the year 2000, proves Climate scientists knew the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period were global, at a time they were trying to claim in public that these events were regional variations confined to Europe.

On December 10, 2004 Schmidt set the tone when he wrote,
“Colleagues, No doubt some of you share our frustration with the current state of media reporting on the climate change issue. Far too often we see agenda-driven “commentary” on the Internet and in the opinion columns of newspapers crowding out careful analysis. Many of us work hard on educating the public and journalists through lectures, interviews and letters to the editor, but this is often a thankless task. In order to be a little bit more pro-active, a group of us (see below) have recently got together to build a new ‘climate blog’ website: RealClimate.org which will be launched over the next few days”:

It’s a good thing Gavin helped set up RealClimate.org because we can browse his responses. See his response to a question about future temperature records being exceeded by 2013.

Real Climate – December 2007Daniel Klein asks at #57:
“OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
(1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
(2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
(3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?”
————[Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/

The land based thermometer record is fundamentally flawed, and compromised through endless adjustments, station drop outs and encroachment of urbanisation etc, and it is time that it was ditched.
The land based thermometer record should be re-stated to raw data (warts and all), and should end in 1979. A realistic error bar should be set taking into account ‘the warts and all’. Adjustments should not be made to get rid of or smooth the warts and all.
As from 1979, only the satellite data should be used, which has better spatial coverage and is less polluted by UHI etc. Again a realistic error bandwidth should be set (taking into account its limitations and issues such as orbital decay and sensor degradation etc)..
The two should not be spliced together but it may be appropriate to look at the trends of each, one up to 1979 and the other post 1979, but bearing in mind that they represent a different approach to measuring temperature, and they are measuring a different region.
The only land nased thermometer record worthy of being kept is CET, and this is because it is the longest instrument record, and therefore can inform on matters pre dating the 1850s. Again a proper error bandwidth needs to be set.
On top of the is we will have ARGO, again warts and all, and once again a proper error bandwidth needs to be set. Since measuring ocean temperature is measuring the right metric (ie, energy content) and given that the oceans contain many more magnitudes of energy compared to the atmosphere, and given that it is the oceans that drive climate, it is only ocean temperature which is of any real note. the problem with ARGO is the short duration of the record.
Mann was concerned about the divergence problem post 1960s. His trees were telling him that there was no post 1960s warming and possibly even cooling, whereas the ‘adjusted’ land based temperature record was suggesting that there was ‘significant’ warming.
Perhaps his trees were not as wrong.as he thought. The satellite data confrims that between 1979 and up to and around the Super El Nino of 1998 there was no warming, and the land based thermometer record suggests that there was cooling in the 1960s and early 1970s. See http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/to:1976 which is based upon Hadcrut 4 global mean.
Perhaps what Mann had found, through his trees and the divergence problem, was that the ‘adjusted’ land based instrument record had been artifically warmed due to the numerous homogenisation, adjustments, pollution through UHI and station drop outs etc. Who would have guessed it, Good Old Mann. His error was failing to set out his findings on the reliability of the land based instrument record post the late 1970s. That is what his paper should have been on!

Jimbo says:
June 30, 2014 at 2:40 am
/////////////////////
Nice.
As regards the answer to point 3, it would be interesting if Gavin would detail the positive forcings due to increase in emissions of GHGs (I recall seeing estimates that some 25% or more of manmade emiisions of CO2 have taken place these past 16 or 17 years), and what volcanos are said to be relevant post 1998 and his assessment of the size of their respective negative forcings, so he can explain why we have not since 1998 seen a rise in temps of between 0.2 to 0.3degC per decade in accordance with model projections
He can then answer what does observation verses model projection tell us about the state of our understanding and the competency of models to usefully project what will happen.

Thank you, Dr. Ball for your unstinting efforts to uncover this worldwide conspiracy and restore Lambs iconic graph of N. hemisphere temps to its rightful place as the starting point of all climate research. Maybe you could just jot in a few figures on the temp axis for clarity?

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
An impressive article that explains the lack of valid science and the extent of political manipulation that props up the warmist alarmism.
AN extract:
“What is a “bombshell” paper? Invariably, it was one that contradicted their claims. Normally, these were ones that showed current climate is well within natural variability and not linked to human activity. The fundamental objective of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is to show human behavior and particularly industrial development is unnatural and creating unnatural changes. This illusion allows them to point to any natural event and imply it is unnatural. Skeptical evidence consistently showed it was not, but most people didn’t know, so, sadly, it was effective.”

“Proponents of the IPCC hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming were mainly connected with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. ”
I think is was a much broader group than that. CRU were important as guardians of hiding/losing/destroying one of the major land temperature records, but it was a broader group that were perverting since to push their politics.
The Met Office Hadley Research Centre, charged with managing the sea surface temperatures seems to have some equally enthusiastic characters.
“One vehicle was William Connolley’s control of over 500 Wikipedia articles.”
One count that came out at the time he got a temporary suspension at WikiPedia was 3500. That is surely way out of date now.
“The web site, RealClimate, was another major vehicle created by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, who invented the name.”
Connolley was also a cofounder. of RC and did some (rather unsuccessful ) modelling work for British Antarctic Survey (BAS) as well as being tied to the Hadley Centre around the turn of the millenium.

I am waiting for some climate scientist to publish a paper on what the optimum climate is for our biosphere. The first question that would naturally flow would be where is our current trend in relation to this finding.
That nobody seems interested in this vital comparison indicates that there climate is being studied for other purposes. Since all the urgent demands that flow from today’s climate science all converge on policy solutions that involve statism, bigger government, higher taxes, less personal liberty, the bigger picture tells me all that I need to know about “climate science”.
I am also curious about how deep the ice got during the last period of glaciation of the northern hemisphere, but that is a question for another time.

@richardscourtney says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:15 amhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/30/ipcc-method-of-proving-the-human-caused-warming-agw-hypothesis-forced-deliberate-creation-of-misinformation/#comment-1673095
I really appreciate you posting from time to time that reminder of the IPCCs mission. As a long-time reader and participant here at WUWT, that was something that impressed me early on that there was no reason to expect skeptical or contrary views to CO2-based CAGW from the IPCC. Newbies here at WUWT will always benefit from seeing the IPCC mission clearly presented. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Tim Ball’s essay is a pretty nifty expose’ of some of the lengths that the unaccountable IPCC has gone to in order to keep the gravy train chugging along, let alone advancing the agenda behind the creation of the IPCC.
The science is quite interesting here at WUWT, but I always appreciate the injection of some discussion of the political aspects of the beastie called CAGW. Thank you, Dr. Ball.

In the graphic of Figure 2, the conifer is a white spruce (Picea glauca), but in the text it becomes a white pine – probably Pinus strobus. BTW, the graphic reads (Pinus Glauca), but only the genus should be capitalized. .
Figure 2 is a slide linking R. B. Alley’s temperature plot with a photograph of a fossilized 4940-year-old White Pine located 100 km north of the current tree line.
[Dr Ball: Do you concur with those edits above? .mod]

“Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. …
The web site, RealClimate, was another major vehicle created by Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt, …
A group of scientists established themselves as the palace guard for the gang at the CRU.”
But, don’t use the word “conspiracy”.
/cynic /sarc

The summation is good. Climate alarm in a hazelnut shell : [A] little acidic.
Re the satellite temps and the land record: I like the idea of showing the land record as a separate line, not stopping at 1979 when the satellite period begins. For one thing, it shows them running in parallel with a gap between. Nothing wrong with that.
For another the two measure different things and it would not be good to have people think the satellites measure ground temperatures. What is important is their trends.
If it emerges that the reported temps are projections in many places don’t be surprised by the responses of the shameless. Fudge, waffle and denial. It would not surprise me in the least if the Conus was cooler now than in the 1930’s. Yes it is hard to tell, but one thing is sure, CO2 is not having any detectable influence on the trend.

My blogpost of May 2013 is relevant herehttp://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/05/climate-forecasting-basics-for-britains.html
It concludes
“This is where the Seven Alarmists scientific judgment was lacking – they embraced the CO2 meme with irrational exuberance and gave poor old Blair ,Cameron Clegg and Miliband the feeling that CO2 disaster was certainly coming and so embarked on their quixotic pursuit of windmills, solar panels biomass, fossil power plant closings, GHG targets and the whole quite mad dogs breakfast that constitutes British climate and energy policy.
I do hope that some of the Seven might even yet review their positions along the lines outlined above and at least say publicly that any coming warming is much less certain than they once thought and that the government might usefully abandon their wasteful subsidies of renewables and forget GHG emission limits and thus reduce the price of energy to British industry and ordinary people.

The scientific underpinnings of the anthropogenic global warming thing are correct. The problem is that models have been demonstrated to be quite inadequate. The science is settled but the science’s application to real world conditions is in doubt. There’s no telling if the effect is worrisome or not. Until proper models have been engineered there is no way to know what to do. The problem is not with the scientific principles, it’s with the engineering of a prediction based on the principles.

It has nothing to do with climate but everything with taking away the power from the experiment ‘We The People’.It has been a hoax since the beginning created so we give up our rights voluntary to save the planet.
Of course this is nothing new because those in power have done this since the beginning of humanity. Power corrupts.
Once you get used to the red carpet the applause the unlimited power most get addicted to this way of life.

Once upon a time a long long time ago John Adams wrote a Dissertation on how to preserve Liberty before he/we knew liberty.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” — John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
In other words in order to preserve Liberty, the voters must have the most intimate knowledge of the historical conduct and moral character of their chosen leaders before the fact. To sustain liberty this right is indefeasible or can not be made null and void.
In today’s America this right has been superseded by political correctness, the hidden communications and secret messages transmitted between our government agencies, Congressional Representatives and the Executive Branch.
Our Chief Executive is the most egregious example; and forbids the use of this inalienable right.
In today’s America every effort is made by most Politian’s to obfuscate and mislead the voters in all things associated with civic knowledge. Civic knowledge has the lowest priority of all courses taught by our grammar and prep schools.
Ask any 6th grader to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They cannot because in today’s America it would be a lie.
Liberty and Justice for all

James Strom says:
June 30, 2014 at 6:27 amDr. Ball, re your figure 5:
Mr. Strom
Fig,5 : Fewer than 10 percent were southerly winds in the decade 1721 -1731 but they were more than 10 percent between 1841-1851.
Thanks for that. Just take a look at this graph for the CET and also the N. Atlantic records (the highest cumulative number in my data file) for the 1721-1731 decade. It would be a great +, if Dr. Ball can confirm the data.

This post started with an important, traditional definition of knowledge that is, unfortunately, contrary to what the IPCC uses. It is also contrary to the intentions guiding K-12 and higher education reforms all over the globe, especially in papers issued by the National Research Council guiding the incorporation of the Next Generation Sciences Standards within the Common Core ELA standards.
Briefly the relevant ‘knowledge’ is now to be provided concepts that in turn are to guide people’s perceptions of their lived experiences. CAGW is just one of those concepts but it is a crucial one because it guides the sense that transformative economic and social change is necessary. Bad weather reenforces because that is how the conceptual understanding is structured.
Knowledge then is conceptual beliefs about how the world works and the physical images tied to those beliefs. It’s also why gaming and virtual reality are so crucial to the curricula NSF has been funding to implement these visions. Perceptions of reality are firmly guided by whatever the programmers designed into their work. Designers like the influential Jane McGonnigal have bragged about designing games that will convince the student players of the need for transformational change.
This acute problem of trying to remake the nature of knowledge in the 2st century to augment governments ability to plan economies and societies and reward cronies has got to be stared straight in the face so we can deal with it. Otherwise we are funding our own demise with foreseeable consequences.

dipchip-I have been explaining recently on my blog that civic education does not mean what we believe and is shifting us towards what is being called deliberative democracy based on required Racial Equity Outcomes. It is also being called Participatory Governance with everyone with an ‘affected interest’ supposedly entitled to a role in decision-making meant to bind everyone.http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/experimenting-on-people-and-places-via-the-rockefeller-process-of-communication-for-social-change/ lays this out with lots of links to the documents. The reference to the Rockefeller process of KFSC comes from a World Bank document. That really is the name of this globally intended means of invisible but transformative social change. Like it or not.
My book also lays out that the word Competency as the purpose of a new vision of K-12 keeps tying back to Civic Mission of the Schools reports that describe creating John Dewey’s participatory democracy of economic justice for all. I wish this is not what the intentions are but there really is no ambiguity in what is being sought in the name of civics education.
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act that sailed through the US Senate last week provides funds for community organizing groups to integrate English language instruction for adults with this Deweyan definition of civics ed so the to-be citizens learn English and the need for structural change at the same time. I read all 812 pages yesterday. I knew from who was plaesed with the act that it had to be bad. I was right.

Robin: This was to be written for my E-mail list before you responded and now have a few additions.
Once upon a time a long long time ago John Adams wrote a Dissertation on how to preserve Liberty before he/we knew liberty.
“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.” — John Adams, Dissertation on Canon and Feudal Law, 1765
In other words in order to preserve Liberty, the voters must have the most intimate knowledge of the historical conduct and moral character of their chosen leaders before the fact. To sustain liberty this right is indefeasible or can not be made null and void.
In today’s America this right has been superseded by political correctness. The hidden communications and secret messages transmitted between our government agencies, Congressional Representatives and the Executive Branch are the basis of all new law. Political expedience trumps all useful governmental change with examples of doom to excite the masses for votes.
Our Chief Executive is the most egregious example; and forbids the use of this inalienable right.
In today’s America every effort is made by most Politian’s to obfuscate and mislead the voters in all things associated with civic knowledge. Civic knowledge has the lowest priority of all courses taught by our grammar and prep schools. The most dire situation involves political science courses taught in our institutions of higher learning; where the free flow of certain political opinions are suppressed to the point of physical harm if they are expressed or promulgated to the student body or administration..
Ask any 6th grader to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. They cannot because in today’s America it would be a lie.
Liberty and Justice for all

@HankHenry June 30, 2014 at 6:58 am
The scientific underpinnings of anthropogenic global warming are not correct. It comes down to a failure, originating with Carl Sagan, to understand basic radiative and IR physics.
1. The black body surface IR emission assumption confuses Irradiance, a potential energy flux, with a real flux. in reality the surface emits at 0.16 mean operational emissivity, mostly in the ‘atmospheric window’.
2. There can be no thermalisation of GHG-absorbed IR in the gas phase because that would breach Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation.
3. There is no back radiation, see (1) and (2).
4. He got the aerosol optical physics wrong, misinterpreting work by van der Hulst: the sign of the AIE is reversed.
Otherwise the models are OK and in 20 years or so may be able to forecast weather a week ahead. Climate never, at least without bringing in paramaterisation of a lot of astrophysics, irreversible thermodynamics and the biofeedback which, controlling cloud area and albedo, give the GHE! I suppose that makes me a constructive sceptic…..:o)

“Robertvd says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:01 am
voluntarily”
Yes indeed. Freedom/Liberty is won on the battlefield with blood and treasure.
It is lost through a misinformed electorate in the ballot booth, VOLUNTARILY.

Cynical Scientst says: “OK – Turkish now gone. So was the problem at my end or at yours.”
WUWT doesn’t have an “end” — it is a blog hosted on WordPress which in turn is hosted on three datacenters. It isn’t his server.
The webservers will make a guess at your native language based primarily on the request header sent by your browser but also by the IP address. If the IP address is known to be from Turkey, the webserver will “localize” certain elements thereto.
If you are indeed in Turkey this is normal behavior.
If you are NOT in Turkey then perhaps the proxy that is intercepting your browsing is in Turkey. That is usually a Bad Thing.

richardscourtney says:
June 30, 2014 at 1:15 am
…This is completely in accord with the official purpose of the IPCC.
The IPCC does NOT exist to summarise climate science and it does not.
The IPCC is only permitted to say AGW is a significant problem because they are tasked to accept that there is a “risk of human-induced climate change” which requires “options for adaptation and mitigation” that can be selected as political polices and the IPCC is tasked to provide those “options”….

==================================================================
I’ve worked in local government for almost 25 years. One thing I’ve noticed is that the more the authority has become centralized, the more politically correct and nonsensical decisions and detached from reality policy has become. The IPCC is just a tool to move authority and policy even further from reality.

vukcevic says:
June 30, 2014 at 7:57 am
Thanks for your input, and for your records. Wind direction could have been recorded pretty accurately in the 18th century, but I am always curious as to whether the information comes from diaries, historical accounts, or instruments. As we stretch our reconstructions back in time we have to use all three sources, and more, with, of course, attendant uncertainties.

“Mann is incorrect because most of the last 10,000 years was warmer than today as the Greenland ice core shows”
You may want to consider that the warmest temperature spike in Greenland from 1350-1150 BC, was very cold in the mid latitudes and caused the collapse of many civilisations including the Minoans that is named after.
Look at 1740 and just before 1740 on Greenland (and other dates too):http://snag.gy/3I7Gu.jpg
and compare to CET, they are travelling in opposite directions. So Greenland temperatures are an inverse proxy for the temperate zone.

IPCC clearly states that their mandate is to study man caused and only man caused sources of climate change. Natural forces and sources could overwhelm man caused and they don’t look and don’t care. Just like all of us, they know who signs their checks and what those signers expect.

Discovering that CO2 change and therefore human activity does not cause global warming is a start. But this leaves the question of what actually does drive average global temperature change.
Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).
The influence of CO2 change is insignificant.
Coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.
R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.
The calculations use data since before 1900 which are publicly available.
The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured.
Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.
The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, demonstrates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.
The method, equation and data sources are provided at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and references.

First, Thank You so much for this article. It sums up very precisely the arguments that many have made. Second @ Richard Verney, trying to tease temperature data from tree rings is useless, unless you are a complete idiot and know nothing about how trees grow, yes temperature is important, but so is moisture, amount of sunlight, type of tree and soil conditions. Was it on the sun side of the hill? What was growing next to it? What kind of plant hormones did those trees produce? Are you wondering what kills those weeds in your yard? Elevation? What’s the range? Both in height and latitude? You don’t think that the rings will be different at the northern and southern limit of its range, or the level above sea level? I can’t believe that this was accepted as evidence of climate change. Supposedly, he cut down over 70 trees till he found one that matched the record he wanted.

@AlecM says:The scientific underpinnings of anthropogenic global warming are not correct. It comes down to a failure, originating with Carl Sagan, to understand basic radiative and IR physics.
Hearing this about Sagan doesn’t surprise me one bit. He always came across to me as a politically-motivated phony. If he were alive today, he would be one of the high priests of the Church of AGW. And he would be appearing in the leftist media quite often to tell everyone how stupid they are to have the slightest doubt of AGW.

Richard Courtney @
June 30, 2014 at 1:15 am
I think you’re right about the IPCC in general, but couldn’t this statement…
[The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change”]
Be interpreted as meaning ..
[ The IPCC exists to provide
(a) “information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of any possible risk of human-induced climate change”…]
…..leaving it open to them—-or even signaling an obligation for them — to provide just as readily, information that concludes or suggests that human-induced climate change is insignificant?
It’s deliberately ambiguous IMO—maybe to cover themselves in order to claim if necessary, that they’re not at fault because the contrary information was withheld from them.
CAGW scientists beware?

The data in Figuree 5 was derived from daily journals and meterological logs maintained by the Hudson’s Bay Company. I created a coding system to digitize the weather data and ended up with approximately 6 million individual weather data points on precipitaion, wind, temperature, etc and many proxy indicators such as date of arrival of geese in spring. I was then able to plot a multitude of graphs such as the one for a sepcific study in Figure 5. All the data for two locaqtions, Churchill and York Factory on Hudson Bay are in printed olumes at Environment Canada at downsview.

metro70:
Your post at July 1, 2014 at 7:32 am which is here makes an interesting comment on the IPCC described in my post at June 30, 2014 at 1:15 am here.
I agree with you that the phrase taken out of context allows the IPCC to reverse position. However, in its context I think the meaning is clear and its wording is not ambiguous. The IPCC has a “Role” which decrees it is tasked to fulfill a political function and not a scientific function: it does what it is intended to do.
Richard

The difference between scientists and propagandists is as follows:
When scientists have a theory, they diligently search for data that contradicts their theory in order to improve the theory, and they welcome the views of others. They adopt the scientific method.
Propagandists, however, cherry-pick only data that appears to support their theory, they discard the other data, then they place their theory on a pedestal claiming it is indisputable ‘gold standard’ settled science fully backed by a consensus. And God help any reputable scientist who dares challenge the theory with valid scientific data!!!!
Well, without a doubt, the propagandists have been driving the catastrophic man-made global warming agenda.

Mervyn commented “When scientists have a theory, they diligently search for data that contradicts their theory in order to improve the theory”
As much as I sympathize and might even share some of your resulting views, in this case I think the scientists doing the real work are doing exactly as you say where it makes sense to do so.
What I mean by that is your purpose out in the field may be to collect data rather than to confirm or challenge a specific theory. In my opinion it is better this way NOT to have a specific theory in mind you are trying to confirm or deny.
What kind of data could exist to disprove a guess or improve a theory of AGW? Nearly everything is an “induction” — the only actual measurement shows that temperatures go up and sometimes down. For more distant past you don’t have temperatures, you have “proxies” whose conformity to temperature varies from pretty good (Vostok ice cores) to rather lousy (tree rings).
To be sure, you can find correlation but establishing that one is the cause of the other is not so easy to determine, perhaps impossible to determine. For instance: Divorce rate in Maine has a .992558 correlation with the U.S. Per Capital consumption of margarine.http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs-show-correlation-between-completely-unrelated-stats-9-pictures/
Some indicators are invisible to non-educated. I have a geologist friend who on looking at a photo I made of canyonlands told me the prevailing wind direction from millions of years ago. That really seemed like he was pulling it out of the nether regions but he explained to me that the huge sand dunes are pushed by the prevailing winds and leave tell-tale “slip faces” downwind or on the lee side. You can plainly see these slip faces and bedding planes (the bottom of the dune). Now, I too see ancient winds blowing sand all the way across North American piling up against the mountains of southern Utah and northern Arizona.
So I give the scientists the benefit of my doubt. On the other hand I give politicians the benefit of my skepticism. When a scientist plays at politics (MM) or a politician plays at science (AG) then for me skepicism is stronger but it is not exclusionary. I will still study the science and that is one reason this particular blog is useful — more science as compared to some and you can ask questions.

Tim Ball, excellent call on the way science was sold out, and as an Australian I am ashamed of the part that some Australians played, like Tom Wigley, he was in the box seat to have exposed these charlatans when he rose to head up the Climate Research Unit in the U.K. and unless I am badly mistaken he had none of the integrity of Lamb and unfortunately was right in the middle of the corruptive influences that have sullied that institution and bought into question his prior association with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology another institution that like the CRU, lost its way.
Where is the conscience of those that knew, and must have understood what was going on, but allowed other fine scientists (colleagues) to have their reputations put down, their work blocked and subverted and what for? Pursuit of personal fame and fortune, and as can be seen from another prominent Australian that fame and fortune is as fickle as the integrity and character of the person.
It seems inevitable in the field of climate science that truth will prevail and some reputations will be reduced to tatters, perhaps still time for some to right the many wrongs that have been done to fellow scientists.
One consolation for me, is that our Fred Daly stood proud and tall opposing their tainted science until to the relief of the “team” he passed on.
The late great Fred Daly will live on in history, with his integrity intact and remembered for his defence of science and colleagues. There are other fine Australian scientists who have taken up the challenge and I thank them for their strength of character.
The legacy of those that crossed that dark line and failed to defend you when you stood up for the integrity of science, will have to live with that personal failure for the rest of their lives.

Mea Culpa! and an abject apology to the Late Great John Daly for misnaming him as “Fred”! I really can’t forgive myself for such an error! It would be nice if we had an edit function to correct the text, but then the old adage kicks in that one should check several times “before” posting. It would be nice if the moderators could correct that stupid mistake for me!!

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy